0R€ ! GN * R€ LI 6 I OW 5 > S 6 RIE S » 



T H € 

R€SVRR€CT!ON OF J6SV5 



BT 480 
.R5 

Copy 1 




DVARD » RfGOGM BT^CH 



Book 3xi 

Copyright N° 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



t 



Foreign Religious Series 



Edited by 
R. J. COOKE, D. D. 

First Series. i6mo, cloth. Each 40 cents, net. 



THE VIRGIN BIRTH 

By Professor Richard H. Griitzmacher, of the 
University of Rostock 

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS 

By Professor Eduard Riggenbach, of the University 
of Basle 

THE SINLESSNESS OF JESUS 
By Professor Max Meyer, Lie. Theol., Gottberg, 
Germany 

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 

By Professor Karl Beth, of the University 
of Berlin 



THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND THE 
SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 

By Professor Fritz Barth, of the University 
of Bern 

NEW TESTAMENT PARALLELS IN 

BUDDHISTIC LITERATURE 

By Professor Karl Von Hase, of the University 
of Breslau 



The Resurrection of 
Jesus 



By 

EDUARD RIGGENBACH 

Professor in the University of Basle 




NEW YORK: EATON & MAINS 
CINCINNATI: JENNINGS & GRAHAM 



\ Two Copios Keseivoc | 

j DEC 24 1 90? 
(olassA xxc, m, 

L.J COPY B.J n . 

Copyright, 1907, by 
EATON & MAINS. 



INTRODUCTION 

There is scarcely another fact in the 
Christian Faith that has caused so much 
difficulty to the belief of the modern man 
as that of the Resurrection of Jesus. The 
advance of science in our days seems to leave 
no room for miracle, especially for such a 
miracle as the resurrection of the dead to a 
new bodily life. And yet the question here 
is not of a miracle which could be put aside 
as unhistorical, without essential deduction 
from the apostolic Gospel. The church has 
always considered the resurrection of Jesus 
as a principal part of her message. The 
apostle Paul occasionally describes Christian 
saving faith in the words : "Thou believest 
in thine heart that God hath raised Jesus 
from the dead" (Rom. 10. 9) ; and he also 
says directly: "If Christ be not risen then 
is our preaching vain ... ye are yet in 
your sins. Then they also which are fallen 
asleep in Christ are perished" (1 Cor. 15. 
14, 17 , 18). In like manner among all 

other New Testament writers, the resurrec- 

s 



6 



Introduction 



tion of Jesus stands at the center of their 
testimony, and without the preaching of the 
Risen One the Christian church would have 
been an impossibility. To give it up means 
nothing less than to give up the apostolic 
Gospel. Should -one try to build a new 
Christianity from what is left, such a re- 
ligion would hardly show the victorious 
power in the struggle with sin arid death 
which is inherent in the preaching of the 
apostles. Consideration for consequences 
cannot, indeed, prevent us from abandoning 
a traditional idea if it does not express the 
truth. The more closely the question under 
discussion affects our holiest interests, the 
more important is it that we should be kept 
from illusions. On the other hand, the 
blessed effect, which proceeded from the 
apostolic preaching, warns us against rashly 
giving up a belief in what is perhaps dis- 
puted, but not refuted. At any rate, the 
interest of thought and faith demands im- 
peratively a serious and conscientious ex- 
amination. We can not and dare not close 
our eyes to the truth, but just as little should 
we be induced to accept as truth that which, 
at the most, may possibly be a mere hypothe- 



Introduction 



7 



sis. Not science but faith will have the last 
word in this question. Investigation can 
only mark out the boundaries of the real 
and knowable and consider the possible ex- 
planations of established facts. In this, how- 
ever, it renders a valuable service to faith 
by guarding it from the influence of pre- 
conceived opinions, instead of reality. A 
one-sided cultivation of critical acumen and 
an unwarranted neglect of historical inquiry, 
are alike dangerous to the continuance of 
genuine belief. 



I 



THE SOURCES OF THE RESURREC- 
TION HISTORY 

An examination of belief in the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus cannot be made without a criti- 
cal study of its sources. In ascertaining an 
historical fact, one will first of all look for 
the accounts of eye-witnesses. Now it is 
true that the Resurrection of Jesus was not 
seen by any human eye. In later apocryphal 
writings only is any other statement made. 
The disciples saw only the empty sepulcher 
and the Risen One. In this respect it seems 
best to start from the first and fourth Gos- 
pels which, according to ecclesiastical tra- 
dition, were composed by apostles. But the 
Greek form in which the first Gospel is ex- 
tant is not from the apostle Matthew. 1 Ac- 

1 This is perhaps a little too strong (see Expositor's 
Greek Testament, p. 43). To Papias maybe added Ire- 
nasus and also Pantasnus (Eusebius,Eccles. History, v. 10); 
but the loss of the Hebrew Gospel, the authority of the 
Greek Text in the Church, similarity to the other Gospels 
and originality of style forbid a pronounced opinion. — 
Editor. 

9 



io The Resurrection of Jesus 

cording to the testimony of Papias, Bishop 
of Hierapolis in Phrygia (about 130 A. D.), 
Matthew composed his work in the Hebrew, 
that is, according to the usage of that time, 
in the Aramaic. In how far our Greek 
Gospel of Matthew is a literal translation or 
a free recast of this Aramaic book, is a much 
disputed question, and as to details, is diffi- 
cult to answer. In the history of the Resur- 
rection strong considerations can be urged 
against the supposition that we have a first 
hand account by one of the twelve. Com- 
pared with its parallels the Easter-story of 
Matthew's Gospel surprises us by its incom- 
pleteness, and when one compares Matthew's 
narrative of the women's walk to the sepul- 
cher with that of Mark he does not gain the 
impression that the greater originality be- 
longs to Matthew. A proper starting point 
for the inquiry is found here. 

It is different with the fourth Gospel. Its 
composition by the apostle John is so easily 
and forcibly attested by ecclesiastical tra- 
dition, that its genuineness would never have 
been doubted had not one imagined that it 
was necessitated by internal evidence. But 
criticism has not succeeded in setting aside 



Sources of Resurrection History i i 

the testimony of the ancient church, and 
despite the undeniable differences which dis- 
tinguish the fourth Gospel from the first 
three, it must still be considered as the work 
of the apostle John. As is generally ac- 
knowledged, it is the latest of the canonical 
Gospel writings not written until the end 
of the first century. And the question may 
be asked, whether the recollection of the 
apostle has not been darkened in the course 
of the decades, and whether the one or the 
other point has not been shifted in his con- 
sciousness by the tradition which became 
ruling in the church. At any rate, an under- 
standing with opponents is precluded from 
the start when decisive weight is put upon a 
work whose genuineness is zealously contro- 
verted. Thus it will be well to examine the 
extant documents according to the chrono- 
logical order of their origin. 

The Account of Paul 

The earliest document which contains a 
detailed account of the Easter events is a 
section in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, 
15. 3-8. The denial of the future resurrec- 



12 The Resurrection of Jesus 

tion of the believers on the part of some 
Christians at Corinth, induces the apostle 
to fall back upon the resurrection of Jesus. 
As matters of fact which in the first lines 
he had already delivered to the Church he 
mentions the death of Jesus for our sins ac- 
cording to the Scriptures, his burial and his 
rising again on the third day according to 
the Scriptures. Then he tells of the six ap- 
pearances of the Risen Lord, which he evi- 
dently gives according to their chronological 
order. The first is that to Cephas; then 
that to the Twelve; then one to more than 
five hundred brethren, the greater part of 
whom were still alive and thus in a condi- 
tion to corroborate his testimony; after 
that he was seen of James, then of all the 
apostles, whereby probably are meant not 
only the Twelve but also other original 
witnesses of Christ, as for example, the 
brethren of the Lord (i Cor. 9. 5). The 
last of the series forms the Christophany 
before Damascus, which Paul himself had 
experienced. There can be no doubt that 
altogether the apostle intends to enumerate 
the most important appearances of the 
Risen Jesus. But one overstrains the sig- 



Sources of Resurrection History 13 

nificance of this account when historicity- 
is denied to all self-revelations of the Lord 
not mentioned therein. We are not obliged 
to suppose that Paul narrated all that he 
knew, or that he knew all that actually took 
place. He reminds the Corinthians only of 
that which he had already communicated to 
them (1 Cor. 15. 1 seq.), and only mentions 
manifestations of the Risen One to such 
persons as by virtue of their authority and 
position, or because of other circumstances, 
could be considered as especially trust- 
worthy witnesses for the resurrection of 
Jesus. This is the main point with him. 
On this account he does not tell whether the 
Risen One entered into intercourse with 
the disciples and what was the issue of 
it. Only by completely mistaking the con- 
nection can far-reaching inferences be 
drawn from the silence of the apostles. 
This is also the case with reference to the 
fact that he does not mention the empty 
sepulcher. When Paul, in support of the 
bodily resurrection of Christians reminded 
them that the dead and buried Christ was 
raised on the third day, none of the read- 
ers of the Epistle could think of anything 



14 The Resurrection of Jesus 

else than of a bodily coming forth of 
Christ from the grave. The fact is that 
for Paul himself the empty grave has no 
special significance as evidence. The posi- 
tive fact that the Risen Jesus had presented 
himself bodily to his own is so decisive for 
him, that he does not think at all of the 
empty grave. 

Paul probably wrote the first Epistle to 
the Corinthians in 57 A. D. What he re- 
cords in it of the resurrection of Jesus is of a 
much earlier date. Five years earlier the 
apostle in his missionary address at Corinth 
had preached just this which he now attests 
to the congregation, and the emphasis which 
he places on his message of the need of sal- 
vation, precludes the idea of a possible 
change in his views (1 Cor. 15. 1-3, 11-20). 
We must go back still further in order to 
get at the source of his preaching. As in 
another place (1 Cor. 11. 23) he refers 
here also (1 Cor. 15. 3) expressly to the 
information which he received. Of whom he 
received it he indicates when he affirms 
(verse 11) that his message is in full agree- 
ment with that of the first apostles. He cer- 
tainly did not begin his extensive activity 



Sources of Resurrection History 15 

among the Gentiles without being perfectly 
clear as to the content of his message. Thus 
on his visit to Jerusalem three years after 
his conversion, about 38 A. D., he may have 
already received accurate information about 
the Easter events. At that time, according 
to Gal. 1. 18-20, he personally became ac- 
quainted with two men of the apostolic 
circle, Peter and James the brother of the 
Lord, and spent fourteen days in intercourse 
with them. 1 To them as his authorities for 
his knowledge, we are referred without fur- 
ther statement because among the appear- 
ances of the Risen Lord to individuals of 
whom we read in 1. Cor. 15, those to Peter 
and John are specified. What he learned 
from these men other members of the primi- 
tive church, no doubt, confirmed and supple- 
mented. The supposition is obvious that 
men like Andronicus and Junia, who 
were converted before Paul and were known 
missionaries (Rom. 16. 7), belonged to the 
five hundred to whose testimony Paul refers 
(1 Cor. 15. 6). But, however this may be, 
certain it is that in 1 Cor. 15 Paul imparts, 
not his subjective thoughts about the resur- 

1 See note at end of chapter. 



1 6 The Resurrection* of Jesus 

rection of Jesus, but the accredited teaching 
of the primitive church. This doctrine was 
for him an unimpeachable quantity. As the 
disciple of the rabbis was bent on handing 
down the expositions and legal decisions of 
his teacher, still more was it a concern of 
the apostle to propagate conscientiously that 
which was delivered to him of the words 
and deeds of Jesus. On this account also is 
he so certain of his agreement with the early 
apostles on this subject. After this it is 
evident that much importance is attached to 
the account of Paul. In it we have a deposit 
of the oldest doctrine of the primitive 
church attested by the mouth of her most 
prominent authorities. 

The First Three Gospels 

It is our object to center upon the difficult 
problem How the peculiar relation of agree- 
ment and diversity between the first three 
Gospels can be explained. We cannot en- 
tirely ignore the question. There is scarcely 
any point where the accounts of the Gospels 
differ so much as in the Easter story. A 
genial expositor, the late F. Godet, aptly 
remarked : "We could compare here the four 



Sources of Resurrection History 17 

accounts with four friends, each of whom, 
after having traveled together, being near 
the end of the journey takes the road to his 
own home." In the Bible it is not so ob- 
vious, because the Gospel of Mark had an 
addition which is a combination of the 
Easter narratives from the three other Gos- 
pels, namely that in section 16. 9-20. 

It may be taken as a settled result of text- 
ual criticism that the Gospel of Mark 
breaks off with 16. 8. The coincidence of 
inner and outer reasons precludes here every 
doubt. One can, indeed, hardly imagine 
that the evangelist intended to narrate the 
walk of the women to the sepulcher without 
adding an account of the appearance of the 
Risen Jesus, and the words (verse 8) : "The 
women did not say anything to any man, 
for they were afraid," as a close of the book, 
are just as unsatisfactory, as contradictory 
in themselves. Whether Mark was prevent- 
ed by outward circumstances from finish- 
ing his notes, or whether the original close 
of the Gospel had been lost before its pub- 
lication, cannot be decided. But we know 
from an ancient Armenian version of the 
Bible, that the section 16. 9-20, in some 



1 8 The Resurrection of Jesus 

copies of the Gospel of Mark, had the super- 
scription "by the presbyter Aristion." 
From this we assume that a Christian of 
that name is undoubtedly meant, whom 
Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (III, 
39. 4, 5, 7, 14), mentions as a personal dis- 
ciple of Jesus. In order to round up some- 
what the strange close of the Gospel of 
Mark, some one added to the book, at the 
end of the first or beginning of the second 
century, from notes of Aristion, the sec- 
tion Mark 16. 9-20. Whether Aristion him- 
self witnessed the Easter event we know not ; 
but the presumption is obvious that this ac- 
count is dependent upon our Gospels (comp. 
Mark 16. 9-1 1 with John 20. 11-18 and 
Luke 8. 2; Mark 16. 12 seq., with Luke 24. 
13-35; Mark 16. 14-18 with Matt. 28. 16- 
20). At all events he stood near enough to 
the events to have an independent knowledge 
of them. 

Setting aside Mark 16. 9-20, we get at 
once a different view of the mutual relation 
of the Gospels. Whereas in the narrative of 
the walk of the women to the sepulcher of 
Jesus the first three Gospels in general agree, 
in spite of many differences in detail, Mat- 



Sources of Resurrection History 19 

thew and Luke are entirely divergent. If 
one imagines that he must derive the rela- 
tionship of the first three Gospels merely 
from a common use or oral tradition, the 
great difference in the Easter story cannot 
be explained. It is otherwise when one 
presupposes a common literary foundation. 
Two things must be considered as very 
probable: In the first place that the Gospel 
of Mark belongs to the sources mentioned 
by Luke (1. 1); secondly it must be sup- 
posed that of the first two Gospels, the one 
formed the copy for the other. A more 
definite statement of the mutual relation is 
not required for our purpose. The much 
agitated question whether Matthew made 
use of Mark, or vice versa, can be left open 
at present. Under all circumstances it must 
be admitted that the close agreement of cer- 
tain parts of Matthew and Luke is mediated 
by Mark. Thus it cannot cause surprise 
that with the close of Mark the point is 
reached where the various agreements of 
the first and third Gospels cease and thence 
differ. Matthew speaks briefly of an appear- 
ance of the Lord to the women in Jerusalem, 
but in a most detailed way of one to the 



20 The Resurrection of Jesus 

twelve disciples on a mountain in Galilee. 
He thus follows the direction toward which 
Mark pointed when in chap. 16. 7, he men- 
tions the word of the angel who holds out 
to the disciples the prospect of a manifesta- 
tion of the Lord in Galilee. Luke (ch. 24) 
mentions three or four appearances of the 
Lord in Jerusalem and its neighborhood; 
once to the disciples on their way to Em- 
maus (verses 13-35), one to Peter (verse 
34), one to the apostles (verses 36-49), and 
one in verse 50 seq. Although it may seem 
as if the evangelist was of the opinion that 
everything which is narrated in chapter 24 
happened on the same day yet it is not diffi- 
cult to perceive that in reality this is not his 
meaning. Since the Emmaus-disciples only 
undertook the walk back to Jerusalem (last- 
ing three hours) after sunset, and Jesus ap- 
peared again to the disciples in the evening, 
he could not have led them to Bethany until 
about midnight, and no reasonable motive 
is given for this nocturnal journey. Luke 
here, where the end of his manuscript no 
doubt demanded brevity, intended to indi- 
cate only what he wished to state more fully 
in the Acts of the Apostles (r. Mi), 



Sources of Resurrection History 21 

namely : that Jesus, during a certain length 
of time was repeatedly seen by the disciples, 
and that on the Mount of Olives finally de- 
parted from them. For the history of the 
Resurrection, especially chapter 24. 13-25, 
Luke seems to have had a Jerusalem au- 
thority whose traces can otherwise also be 
noticed in his Gospel. This must be taken 
into account in considering why he only 
recorded the appearances of Christ in 
Jerusalem. 

John 

The fourth Gospel, whose composition 
by the apostle John we have already af- 
firmed, is lacking in a uniform statement in 
the Easter history. To the original extent 
of the Gospel belongs chapter 20. This is 
clearly seen from the closing remark (verses 
30, 31). Chapter 21 is an addition which 
mediately or immediately also belongs to 
the apostle John, but which was added later. 
In chapter 20 the evangelist describes first 
how by the order of things which he saw in 
the empty sepulcher, he was led to believe 
in the resurrection of Jesus (verses 1-10), 
a section which bears the stamp of personal 



22 The Resurrection of Jesus 

experience. He then describes the three 
appearances of the Risen One of which that 
to Mary Magdalene (verses 11-18) and that 
to the apostles, excepting Thomas (verses 
IO-25), certainly took place in Jerusalem. 
On account of the similarity of the situation, 
the same will probably also hold good of the 
third appearance, to all the disciples (verses 
26-29). The addition (chapter 21) men- 
tions an appearance of the Lord in Galilee 
by the Sea of Tiberias in the presence of 
seven disciples. The relation of chapter 21 
to chapter 20 is highly instructive. It not 
only shows that the evangelists attach no 
value whatever to the outward situation, for 
John suddenly transfers the reader from 
Jerusalem to the Galilean sea without any 
waste of words, but it causes us rather to 
perceive how the evangelists in the selection 
of their material, proceeded freely just as 
the purpose of their statement requires. Ac- 
cording to chapter 20. 30 seq., John intended 
to bring the readers of his book to faith in 
Jesus as the Christ and Son of God. On this 
account he could give his Gospel a more 
appropriate close than the history of 
Thomas, which brings before the eyes how 



Sources of Resurrection History 23 

the last and most obdurate doubter in the 
circle of the disciples falls down adoringly 
before the Lord. Had a special reason not 
caused the addition of chapter 21, we had 
known nothing of the appearance in Galilee 
of which John knew, as also of the appear- 
ances of the Lord in Jerusalem. It is more- 
over remarkable that John, in recounting 
the appearances of the Risen Lord (21. 14) 
considers only those to the circle of the dis- 
ciples, but pays no attention to that to Mary 
Magdalene (20. 1 1-18) . This is a clear sug- 
gestion how the enumeration of the appear- 
ances by Paul (1 Cor. 15. 5-8) is to be 
judged. 

Apocrypha 

Of the apocryphal gospels, only the pre- 
served fragments of the gospel of the 
Hebrews (originated about 135), and of the 
gospel of Peter (about 150) can, at the 
most, be taken into consideration. The 
former mentions an appearance of the Risen 
to James ; but what it states beyond ( 1 Cor, 
15. 7) is historically worthless. Moreover, 
the latter gives a narrative strikingly bizarre 
in its fantastic description as compared with 



24 The Resurrection of Jesus 

the statement of the canonical gospels ; and 
the supposition is not unfounded that the au- 
thor of this apocryphal writing may have 
used the original closing verses of Mark. 

It is by no means dogmatical prejudice 
when a sharp distinction is made between 
canonical and apocryphal gospels. The 
secondary contents of the latter, as is gener- 
ally acknowledged, would justify this. 
Moreover, such a distinction is required 
since the apocryphal gospels, for example, 
the gospel of Peter, notoriously utilize the 
canonical gospels, without, however, con- 
sidering their relatively later time of compo- 
sition, or offering any guarantee that their 
own additions and changes are to be traced 
back to anything else than the fancy and 
tendency of their authors. The gospel of 
the Hebrews, on account of its possible re- 
lation to the Aramaic original of Matthew, 
and because of its Palestinic origin, might 
perhaps claim a higher estimate. Positively 
it contains nothing of the history of the 
Resurrection which could be regarded as an 
enrichment of the canonical tradition. Com- 
pare w^ith the apocryphal narratives the ac- 
count of Aristion, which was added later to 



Sources of Resurrection History 25 

the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16. 9-20), and 
one will admire the wisdom of the church in 
her selection of the descriptions of the life 
of Jesus appointed for religious use. 

Result 

This short survey of the sources exhibits 
an almost surprising fullness of different 
narratives and varying accounts. It would 
seem almost impossible to elicit from the 
protean and in part contradictory state- 
ments the course of events. This is only the 
case so long as one considers the accounts 
as of equal value, and thinks that each indi- 
vidual letter of these must be emphasized. 
But the picture becomes at once a different 
one when one places the individual narratives 
beside each other, seeks out the main streams 
of tradition, and tries to obtain the under- 
standing of the individual from the conclu- 
sive point of view. An example may suf- 
fice. All four Gospels speak of the women 
going to the sepulcher. Putting their narra- 
tives mosaically together, we meet with so 
many diversities that the work cannot be 
carried out without the greatest artificiality. 



26 The Resurrection of Jesus 

It is different when one distinguishes the 
different branches of tradition. The tra- 
dition of the first three Gospels has lost the 
recollection, preserved by John, that Mary- 
Magdalene went twice to the sepulcher of 
the Lord, once in company with the other 
woman (John 20. 1 seq. ; observe "we know 
not/ 5 verse 2) ; the second time with. Peter 
and John (John 20. 3-18). 

What Mark (16. 1-8) tells of the experi- 
ence of the women at the sepulcher occurs, 
meanwhile, between the first and second 
walks of Magdalene, and his account is in so 
far only lacking as he keeps silent about the 
first return of Magdalene to Jerusalem, thus 
making it appear that her experiences 
agreed with those of the other w T omen. 
Matthew (28. 1-10) combines the tradition 
of Mark with that represented by John; 
hence he narrates an appearance of the Lord 
to the women, w T hereas, according to John, 
the question was only of one Christophany 
to Magdalene. For the same reason he 
makes the women speak of their experience 
at the sepulcher; whereas, according to 
Mark 16. 8, they kept silent, and the Magda- 
lene at first only spoke of her perceiving the 



Sources of Resurrection History 27 

empty sepulcher (John 20. 2), and after- 
ward told of seeing the Lord (20. 18). 

In Luke (24. 1-11) a like combination is 
found insomuch as he combines the record 
of Mark with recollections which he drew 
from the Jerusalem source peculiar to him 
(comp. 24. 22-24). Thus John, by offering 
quite naturally the key for the understanding 
of the events, proves to be the best-informed 
eye-witness. Mark evidently records what 
Mary the mother of James narrated ; while 
Matthew and Luke also record, not their 
own inventions, but the account of Mark 
with other traditions, whereby a certain 
confusion originates. 

For the reconstruction of the resurrection 
story Paul and John must, in the first in- 
stance, be considered as authorities, the for- 
mer conveying the oldest teaching of Peter 
and James, the latter an eye-witness of most 
of the events. Mark, because his narra- 
tive breaks off with 16. 8, is so far to be used 
for the appearances of the Lord, as infer- 
ences from the intended continuation of the 
narratives can be drawn from verses 1-8; 
but it is obvious that the greatest care is 
here required lest one fall into arbitrary in- 



28 The Resurrection of Jesus 



terpretations. That Luke had a good tra- 
dition in his special source is attested by its 
harmony with John, only that we are not in 
a position to judge how far he allows this 
source to speak. Finally Matthew also had 
reliable information, but is little concerned 
about the outward details of the events. 

[Note. The verb used by Paul in verse 18, 
icTopfjcai, is very suggestive. The word see in A. V. 
does not express its meaning, nor does the render- 
ing to become acquainted, usually given by commen- 
tators, fully convey the idea intended. Paul does 
not say he went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, nor 
to become acquainted with Peter; such was not his 
real main purpose at all ; but he went up to history 
Peter, to obtain facts from, to question, examine 
Peter. The verb Icropecj, his tor eo, signifies to ask, 
to inquire into, to find out what one has to relate 
as a fact; and the noun, such knowledge as is ob- 
tained by inquiry, a written account of facts, his- 
tory, Paul then went up to Jerusalem to examine 
Peter concerning historical facts in the life of Christ. 
« — Editor.] 



II 



THE HISTORICALLY DEMON- 
STRABLE FACT 

Whatever one may think of the miracle 
of the Easter story, he must, at all events 
acknowledge that it is founded upon some 
fact. An examination of the actual circum- 
stances would be impossible save that it is 
accurately ascertained what can be found 
out as historically true. Of course the 
opinion of the value of the records has 
here a decisive influence; but it should be 
possible to obtain some fixed points from 
which further inquiry can proceed. In the 
following we shall put together what ap- 
pears to us to be historically indisputable. At 
the same time we will confine ourselves to 
the essential, that which is decisive for prov- 
ing the fact of the resurrection. An inquiry 
into all details of the Gospel accounts is 
outside the setting of our present task, and it 
is therefore not our intention to give up as 
unhistorical what is not here mentioned. 

We only wish to obtain a basis which shall 
29 



30 The Resurrection of Jesus 

make a decision possible on the essential con- 
tents of the Easter story. 

i. It is generally acknowledged that the 
disciples became deeply dejected when Jesus 
was taken and crucified. As the entire Gos- 
pel narrative attests, before Easter they 
could not accommodate themselves to the 
suffering of their Master. Unto the end 
they showed surprise and opposition to the 
repeated passion prophecies of the Lord, 
and obstinately warded off the thought of 
his death. This fact must be adhered to 
even when the announcement of the passion 
has to be considered as something additional. 
The description of the behavior of the dis- 
ciples would only show how difficult it was 
for them to understand then and even after- 
ward the suffering fate of the Master. The 
flight of the Twelve in Gethsemane (Mark 
14. 50), the denial of Peter (Mark 14. 66- 
72) and the aloofness of most disciples at 
the crucifixion (Mark 15. 40 seq. ; Luke 23. 
49) prove that the events of those critical 
days had completely surprised them. How 
far the thought of a resurrection of Jesus 
was from them even on the Easter morn 
is seen in the intention of the women to 



Historically Demonstrable Fact 31 

anoint the Lord (Mark 16. 1). The dispo- 
sition of the disciples on the days after the 
crucifixion of Jesus is best characterized by 
that inimitable word of the Emmaus pil- 
grims (Luke 24. 21) : "We trusted that it 
had been he which should have redeemed 
Israel." Their belief in the prophetical mis- 
sion of Jesus did not disappear, nor their 
love for him ; but the trust in his Messianic 
calling is gone, or, is at least deeply shaken. 
That in all this we have a faithful record, 
later history confirms. As for the Phari- 
sees, Saul (comp. Gal. 3. 13), and so for 
the Jews in general, the Crucifixion was an 
offence from which they turned away with 
loathing (1 Cor. 1. 23; Gal. 5. 11). It re- 
quired a complete reversal of national views, 
hopes and feelings for the Jew to surmount 
the stumbling-block of the cross. Hence we 
can hardly realize to ourselves the wretched 
despondency and despair in the days before 
Easter. 

2. It is equally certain that the disciples 
some time afterward became firmly con- 
vinced of the resurrection of Jesus. The 
whole primitive church is founded on this 
faith. It cannot have originated in the 



32 The Resurrection of Jesus 

course of historical development, but must 
ever have been the common property of 
Christendom. All writers of the New 
Testament presuppose it as a matter of 
Gospel, or expressly attest it. 

3. Faith in the resurrection of Jesus was 
sustained from the beginning by the convic- 
tion that the Risen Lord had repeatedly ap- 
peared to his people and had presented him- 
self to them alive. How these appearances 
are to be explained is a question by itself; 
their actuality cannot be denied. The ac- 
count of Paul in 1 Cor. 15. 3-8 vouches for 
it, and it cannot be touched by any scepti- 
cism. Though the records, in numbering 
the appearances, may differ much, it must 
not be forgotten that none of them claims to 
be complete, especially as each selects ma- 
terial according to certain points of view. 
Even diversities which cannot be harmon- 
ized, can only prove that the tradition was 
not clear as to details ; not however that no 
appearances had taken place at all. But we 
are not lacking in a considerable stock of 
common recollections. 

Of the appearances mentioned by Paul 
(1 Cor. 15. 5-8) some can certainly be 



Historically Demonstrable Fact 33 

identified, others not without probability, 
with those mentioned in the Gospels. Thus, 
as witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus are 
mentioned: Peter (Luke 24. 34); the 
Twelve (Luke 24. 36-49; John 20. 19-23; 
Mark 16. 14-18) ; perhaps the five hundred 
brethren (Matt. 28. 16-20) ; in the gospel 
of the Hebrews only James ; probably all the 
apostles (Luke 24. 50, 51; Acts 1. 3-1 1). 
Passed over by Paul and mentioned only in 
the Gospels are the appearances to Mary 
Magdalene (John 20. 11-18; Matt. 28. 9 
seq. ; Mark 16. 9-1 1) ; to the Emmaus pil- 
grims (Luke 24. 13-33; Mark 16. 12 seq.) ; 
to the Twelve, including Thomas (John 20. 
26-29) ; to the seven disciples by the Galilean 
sea (John 21). That Christophanies of a 
more private, pastoral character happened 
to some disciples recorded in tradition can- 
not be strange. More conspicuous is the 
passing over of self-manifestations of the 
Lord before larger circles. One was evi- 
dently satisfied to assert that the Lord ap- 
peared to a number of appointed witnesses. 
The certain recollection of individual cases 
was more valuable than a great number of 
testimonies difficult to control. For the rest, 



34 The Resurrection of Jesus 

traits of an individual character are some- 
times generalized and combined with the 
appearances before larger circles. Thus the 
doubt of Thomas (John 20. 23 seq.) may 
be referred to in Matt. 28. 16; Luke 24, 37 ; 
Mark 16. n, 13, 14, but in the absence of 
details that cannot be stated positively as a 
fact. 

4. Though often disputed, yet it is his- 
torically certain that the disciples believed 
they saw the Risen Jesus in the same body 
which was laid in the sepulcher, but that it 
had become spiritualized. All accounts 
speak of a bodily resurrection ; nevertheless, 
the identity of the dead body with the risen 
body is more strongly emphasized in the 
Gospels, but by Paul its glorification. Ac- 
cording to all four Gospels the women at the 
sepulcher learn that Jesus is no longer there, 
but is risen. This can only be understood as 
a bodily resurrection. Mary recognizes the 
Lord by the sound of his voice (John 20. 
16) ; Jesus shows unto his disciples his hands 
and his side (John 20. 20, 27; Luke 24. 39) ; 
he allows men to touch his body (Matt. 28. 
9; Luke 24. 39; John 20. 27) ; he even eats 
with them to convince them of the reality of 



Historically Demonstrable Fact 35 

his bodily resurrection (Luke 24. 41-43; 
Acts 10. 41). Though these traits might 
lead to the idea that the Risen had returned 
into the former earthly, human life, yet 
there are others which point to a glorified 
existence. Jesus suddenly appears among 
his disciples, the doors being shut (Luke 24. 
36; John 20. 19, 26) and disappears just as 
unexpectedly (Luke 24. 31). The disciples 
associate no more with him as formerly; 
they only know him when he makes himself 
known (Luke 24. 31, 35; John 20. 16) and 
observe a remarkable reserve toward him 
(John 21). This is explained from his 
having already entered into his glory (Luke 
24. 26). According to Paul the Risen 
One has a "glorious body" (Phil. 3. 21), 
a spiritual body, serving the spirit entirely 
as organ (1 Cor. 15. 44); but, changed 
and glorified, it is nevertheless the same 
which was once laid in the grave. This 
is especially clear from 1 Cor. 15. 3, 4. 
To the statement that Jesus was buried, 
the apostle immediately adds the other, 
that he rose again the third day accord- 
ing to the Scriptures. Burial and resur- 
rection stand in such close relation that 



36 The Resurrection of Jesus 

no other idea is possible than that Jesus rose 
with the body which was formerly buried. 
This is confirmed by other expressions of the 
apostle. He repeatedly calls baptism a being 
buried and raised with Christ (Rom. 6. 3 
seq. ; Col. 2. 12). The analogy is only ap- 
propriate in so far that it presupposes the 
raising of the body of Jesus which was 
buried. When the candidate for baptism, 
according to the rite of antiquity, was 
plunged into the water, was, as it were, 
buried in it, and afterward came out of the 
water as a new man and yet as the same 
person, this act represented the burial and 
raising of Jesus. No thought of a coarse 
materiality of the resurrection body comes 
to the apostle from this line of reflection. 
As he expected that at the coming of Christ 
the living believers would experience a 
transformation of their bodies, he also pre- 
supposed that the dead body of the Lord 
had at its raising been glorified in a higher 
form of existence. It is possible that the 
recollection of Paul that he once saw the 
heavenly One may have given a peculiar 
stamp to the picture of the glorified Christ ; 
yet he agrees with the evangelists that the 



Historically Demonstrable Fact 37 

earthly body of Jesus was not decayed in 
the grave, but was raised and glorified. 

5. In closest relation to what has just 
been said, stands the certainty of the dis- 
ciples that the sepulcher of Jesus was found 
empty. The disputers of the resurrection of 
Jesus differ in their opinion as to whether 
we have to deal here with an historical fact ; 
but they in an unconceivable manner make 
their own position difficult by not admitting 
the empty sepulcher, since they thereby de- 
prive themselves of the strongest starting- 
point for a natural explanation of the belief 
of the disciples. That the body of Jesus 
had not been interred in some unknown cor- 
ner, but was honorably buried, is beyond 
question. Romans and Jews did not refuse 
a decent burial to criminals whose relatives 
asked for the body. Concerning the burial 
of Jesus in the neighborhood of Golgotha, 
the four Gospels give an account perfectly 
harmonious in the main, and Paul also ac- 
counts the burial of Jesus among the fixed 
beliefs of the primitive church (1 Cor. 15. 
4; comp. Rom. 6. 4; Col. 2. 12). Mark dis- 
tinctly states how the women carefully be- 
held where Jesus was laid (15. 47), and 



38 [The Resurrection of Jesus 

were troubled on the Easter morning be- 
cause they were unable to roll away the 
stone from the door of the sepulcher (16. 
3) ; one of them, no doubt being well ac- 
quainted with the locality. Again, we read 
in all the Gospels that the women who went 
very early on the Easter morning to the 
sepulcher found it empty. Luke (24. 12, 
24) and John (20. 1-10) attest the same 
of such as belonged to the apostolic circle. 
Even the enemies of Jesus bear here an un- 
mistakable witness to the fact. It has never 
been objected to the resurrection preaching 
of the disciples that the body of Jesus was 
still in the sepulcher as Peter (Acts 2. 29), 
in explanation of Psalm 16, refers to David's 
sepulcher and which naturally would have 
been in Jerusalem. The manufactured report 
spread by the Jews, that the disciples had 
stolen the body (Matt. 28. 13, 15), shows 
that the fact that the sepulcher was empty 
could not even be denied. What is objected 
to in the historical account of the Gospels on 
this point is of no importance. He is mis- 
taken who thinks that the news of the empty 
sepulcher would have induced the apostles, 
or perhaps a mass of inquisitive people to 



Historically Demonstrable Fact 39 

visit the sepulcher. It may have been a few; 
hours before the disciples, who hardly lived 
together, had been informed of the experi- 
ence of Mary Magdalene ; besides the fear of 
the Jews might have prevented many of 
them from showing themselves in public. 
But after the first appearance of the Risen 
had taken place, the attention of the dis- 
ciples was turned from the empty sepulcher 
to the Lord himself, and there was no need 
to seek the proof of the resurrection of the 
Lord in the disappearance of the body. This 
is illustrated by the account of Paul ( 1 Cor. 
15. 3 seq.), who here certainly sets forth 
the knowledge of the church, and not a sup- 
posedly more spiritual subjective opinion 
differing from the view of the Palestinians. 

6. It is of noteworthy importance that the 
oldest statement placed the resurrection of 
Jesus, and thus also the first appearance of 
the Risen One, on the third day after the 
Crucifixion. The third day is the most 
strongly attested date of the resurrection. 
Paul refers for it to the belief of the congre- 
gation. All four Gospels at least, preclude 
a later date, stating that on the Easter 
morning it became known to the disciples or 



40 The Resurrection of Jesus 

the women, not only that the sepulcher was 
empty, but also that the Lord had risen 
(Mark 16. 1-8). Matthew and Luke men- 
tion the third day directly as the date of the 
resurrection by the prediction of Jesus, that 
he would rise again "after three days" 
(Mark 8. 31 ; 9. 31 ; 10. 34), the announce- 
ment of the resurrection "on the third 
day/' has reference to the fact of its ful- 
fillment (Matt. 16. 21 • 17. 23 ; 20. 19; Luke 
9. 22 ; 18. 33 ; especially 24. 7 and 46). An- 
other witness for this date is the Christian 
celebration of Sunday, the beginning of 
which reaches back to the apostolic age. 
That it was borrowed from Babylonian or 
Persian sun-cult is out of the question. 
Though there may be more trustworthy 
traces of a distinction of the Sabbath above 
the other days of the week in pre-Christian 
heathendom or Judaism than is really the 
case, the Christian Sunday celebration has, 
at all events, nothing to do with Sun-wor- 
ship. Not even the astrological name "Sun- 
day" was used by the Christians of the first 
centuries. In the New Testament the festive 
day is called after truly Jewish usage, "the 
first day of the week" (1 Cor. 16. 2; Acts 



Historically Demonstrable Fact 41 

20. 7), or is already called "the Lord's Day" 
Rev. 1. 10), which is its truly Christian no- 
tation. When the church transferred its re- 
ligious celebration to> the first day of the 
week, and not to the Sabbath of Jewish cus- 
tom, it must have had a special reason ; and 
according to the unanimous testimony of 
the church fathers, it was the resurrection 
of Jesus on the first day of the week — the 
third day after the Crucifixion. 

The effort to derive this particular date 
from heathenish notions, perhaps from the 
idea of Parseeism, that after death the soul 
still hovers three days and three nightls 
about the body, is just as abortive as the 
falling back upon Old Testament passages 
like Jonah 2. 1, or Jesus's predictions like 
Matt. 12. 40. The question is here always of 
"three days" instead of the "third day," and 
Hos. 6. 2, "after two days will he revive us ; 
in the third day he will raise us up, and we 
shall live again in his sight" has too much 
the stamp of a proverbial mode of expres- 
sion to fix definitely the time of the resur- 
rection of Jesus. Besides, this passage 
played no part whatever in the Scripture 
proof of the oldest church. Not even the 



42 The Resurrection of Jesus 

finding of the empty sepulcher made it pos- 
sible to fix the time of the resurrection of 
Jesus, since no one knew when the sepulcher 
had become empty. The dating of the resur- 
rection on the third day finds a satisfactory 
explanation only in this, that on this day 
the appearances of the Risen One took place. 
This is also attested by all three Gospels, 
which in general record the self-manifesta- 
tions of the Risen Jesus. 

7. From the record we learn that the first 
appearance of the Lord took place at Jeru^ 
salem. It is at the present time almost gen- 
erally conceded that the disciples had been 
there on the Easter morning; this is clear 
from Mark 16. 7. They would then have 
learned that the sepulcher of Jesus had been 
found empty (John 20. 2). The original 
silence of the women (Mark 16. 8) may not 
have lasted very long. Having learned of 
the empty tomb they would not have left 
Jerusalem at once, especially as the Feast of 
Unleavened Bread detained them. Thus the 
circumstances are entirely in accord with 
that which is demanded by the date of the 
resurrection, and is attested by Matthew (28. 
9 seq.), Luke (24) and John (20. 11 seq.), 



Historically Demonstrable Fact 43 

that the first appearance of the Risen Lord 
took place in Jerusalem. When in Mark 
(16. 7) the word of the angel expressly 
promises to the disciples a seeing of the Lord 
in Galilee, this does not preclude that appear- 
ances took place also in Jerusalem. A pre- 
diction is not necessarily an account of what 
happened, especially since the word of the 
angel contains only a reproduction of Jesus's 
own declaration (Mark 14. 28). What is 
supposed in Mark 16. 7 finds its answer in 
the assumption that important appearances 
of Jesus took place also in Galilee. The one- 
sided emphasis on such a one in Matthew 
(28. .7, 10, 16), can not preclude Jerusalem 
Christophanies, because through the absence 
of almost any historical individual traits the 
text in Matt. 28. 16-20 makes the impression 
of having been condensed. The possibility 
at any rate exists that "the 'either-or' of the 
statements resolves into an 'as-well-as' of the 
facts/' That the disciples, at the end of the 
feast, returned to their Galilean homes, is 
a matter of course, as on the other hand the 
founding of the church in Jerusalem proves 
that the abode of the disciples in Galilee was 
of long duration. On this account the self- 



r 44 The Resurrection of Jesus 

manifestations of the Risen One there could 
easily recede in tradition. The room for ap- 
pearances in Jerusalem and Galilee is cer- 
tainly warranted by history. 

8. During how long a period Christoph- 
anies took place cannot be accurately as- 
certained. According to Acts I. 3, it was a 
space of forty days, but forty may be meant 
as a round number. Paul considers the ap- 
pearance which happened to him as the last 
of all (1 Cor. 15. 8). The Christophanies 
came to an end in a comparatively short 
time, without considering a repetition of 
them as necessary or possible. 

The alleged points only show the ground 
lines of the resurrection history. As to the 
details many things remain uncertain and 
indistinct. This is in part due to the already 
described state of the sources, in part also 
to the nature of the events in question. We 
have not a connected series of events to 
deal with. Jesus no longer dwelt in the 
midst of his disciples. He appears to them 
only now and then, and these experiences 
are always during special hours of rest. 
Then their whole interest is concentrated 
upon the center of the event, the person of 



Historically Demonstrable Fact 45 

the Lord, and all accessory circumstances 
recede. In the fragmentary character of the 
narratives the peculiarity of the events is 
reflected. It were unreasonable to expect 
a full account where, as a matter of fact, 
single pictures only can be offered. What 
remains of minor contradictions in the par- 
allel accounts, aside from this, goes hardly 
beyond that which can be perceived in the 
whole history of the Gospels. Where hu- 
man observation and description participate 
in the presentation of a course of history, 
we shall always find differences in the ac- 
counts, especially where the narrators are 
eye-witnesses. But one need not therefore 
doubt the credibility of the record. A judge 
of very long experience and famous for his 
knowledge of men once said that perfect 
agreement of the witnesses is always a proof 
that, though they did not agree in their in- 
dividual statements, yet it harmonized them 
as to the main fact. Whoever exercises a 
minute critique on such details and uses it to 
discredit the recorded events, shows no 
historical tact. 

The fundamental facts of the Easter story 
can well be perceived. Though a different 



46 The Resurrection of Jesus 

estimate of the records may displace the 
conception as to details, on the whole there 
should be an agreement in all parts as to the 
established fact. We cannot go further back 
than to the oldest belief of the Church. 
Whoever thinks that he must deny it all 
value, and prefers to put his own construc- 
tions in its place, should be conscious that 
this means to resign historical knowledge. 
But in the case of an event which evidently 
has produced the most powerful historical 
effect, it should not be impossible to find 
trustworthy traces. 



Ill 



EXPLANATIONS OF THE HISTOR- 
ICAL FACTS 

Briefly condensing the historically de- 
monstrable facts of the Easter events, the fol- 
lowing can be stated. The disciples, most 
deeply affected by the death of the Lord 
and not knowing what to make of his Mes- 
siahship, on the third day after the Cruci- 
fixion, and later on more frequently, be- 
lieved that they had seen Jesus in Jerusalem 
and elsewhere, risen from the grave to a 
new, glorified life. One can admit this with- 
out either sharing the belief of the disciples 
or opposing it. It concerns here only the 
acknowledgment of an historical fact, which, 
allowing small deductions, cannot at all be 
discredited in its reality. The church-his- 
torical, yea, the world-historical importance 
which the faith of the disciples has obtained 
presses to further inquiry; more yet, the 
religious interest which is attached to the 
testimony of the disciples. How did they 
obtain the certainty that Jesus rose from 

47 



48 The Resurrection of Jesus 

the dead? Is their belief based on a real, 
outward event, and if so, of what nature is 
it? Or, has a change merely taken place in 
their consciousness, which may have been 
caused by outward circumstances, but has 
not in it its real, last reason ? Analogy w T ith 
like phenomena induces the sceptic to ex- 
plain the origin of the faith of the disciples 
in a purely natural way. The opponents of 
Christianity have pursued that course from 
the oldest times of the church. In modern 
times even members of the church have fol- 
lowed them, and today it is a settled fact 
in large circles that an explanation wholly 
precluding the miraculous of the resurrec- 
tion belief may well be consistent with 
Christianity. A careful examination of this 
question is the more urgently needed. 

Two views formerly emphasized, have 
now disappeared. According to the fraud 
theory the disciples did not believe in the 
resurrection of Jesus, but as the evil report 
of the Jews (Matt. 28. 13, 15) asserted, 
knowingly invented the resurrection of the 
Lord. This could be expected from them 
only if one misjudged their moral sincerity 
so evident in all the writings of the New 



Explanations of Historical Facts 49 

Testament, and ignored the sufferings which 
they had to endure just because of their 
faith in the Risen Lord. The swoon theory- 
asserted that when Jesus was taken from the 
cross, he was not yet quite dead and that he 
revived to a new life in the cool sepulcher. 
But it did not answer the question how the 
half-dead could appear to the disciples as the 
conqueror of death, and what had finally 
become of him. Both attempts of explica- 
tion must be considered as wholly abortive 
because they are opposed from the very start 
by every historical probability. To deal fur- 
ther with them were labor thrown away. 
Only two interpretations of the facts are to 
be taken seriously. They agree in that they 
transfer the appearances of Jesus exclusively 
to the consciousness of the disciples, but they 
entirely differ in the derivation of these phe- 
nomena. According to the one these Chris- 
tophanies are only a reflection of the dispo- 
sitions and views of the disciples (subjective 
yision theory). By the other they are con- 
sidered as an effect of God and Christ on the 
consciousness of the disciples (objective 
vision theory). While formally agreeing 
these expositions differ much materially, and 



50 iThe Resurrection of Jesus 

must be treated singly, though many things 
which concern the one apply also to the 
other. 

The Christophanies as a Mere Re- 
flection of the Consciousness of 
the Disciples 

As the church history of all centuries 
shows, mighty religious movements were 
frequently accompanied by visionary phe- 
nomena. Individuals or larger circles have 
not seldom heard heavenly voices, seen 
angels, saints, or departed dead who gave 
them commissions and encouraged them to 
action. The supposition is offered that the 
Christophanies of the disciples must also 
thus be considered ; their seeing of the Risen 
One was only the result of their continual 
mental occupation concerning the Lord, 
whose picture had indelibly impressed itself 
upon their souls. Some peculiarities of the 
Easter accounts could thus be easily ex- 
plained, but the question is whether, on the 
whole, this does justice to the historical 
facts. 

Visionary appearances usually presuppose 



Explanations of Historical Facts 51 

an over-excitement of the mental and phys- 
ical life. Sometimes a diseased condition is 
the cause, sometimes the disposition to ec- 
stasy rests on extrordinary bodily or mental 
exertion and fatigue. The attempt has often 
been made to point out a physical disposition 
to visions on the part of the disciples of 
Jesus, but this is a daring undertaking. It 
may lawfully be admissible to make a med- 
ical diagnosis of a man after 2,000 years on 
the basis of scanty and often disputed rec- 
ords. But at any rate one should not make 
the disciples run as fast as possible first to 
Galilee and then, a long time after Easter 
have experienced visions there when one 
must imagine in them a special asthenia of 
the nervous system. In Galilee their af- 
fected mind could sooner be quieted than in 
Jerusalem, where everything recalled the 
fearful events of Monday, Tuesday, and 
Good Friday, and where fear for one's own 
safety enhanced mental excitement. But it 
does not pay to dispute about possibilities 
which completely recede before careful 
examination. 

A serious consideration against the vision 
theory is this, that the disciples must have 



52 The Resurrection of Jesus 

Imagined that they must consider the ap- 
pearances of the Lord as real events. In a 
dream we imagine that everything is real 
which happens to lis, and when we 
suddenly awake a few minutes may pass be- 
fore we realize that we have been only 
dreaming. But the quiet insight comes 
without fail. In like manner it should have 
happened to the disciples had the seeing of 
the Risen Lord been of a visionary kind. 
During the period of ecstasy they might well 
have thought they saw Jesus bodily, heard 
his words, touched his body; but afterward 
they would become conscious that they had 
seen a vision. But the question ought to have 
come to them at once whether what they had 
seen in a vision could lay claim to full reality. 
It would be correct to> state that Peter, after 
awakening from the vision, considered the 
sheet filled with all manner of unclean beasts 
(Acts 10. 10-19, 28), as no more really ex- 
isting than Paul did the Macedonian who in- 
vited him to come to Europe (Acts 16. 9). 
The more frequently the apostles had visions, 
the more able they would be to discern 
between vision and reality (comp. Acts 12. 
9-1 1 ). One can here only avail himself of 



Explanations of Historical Facts 53 

the supposition that later tradition, as it is 
extant in our Gospels, has transferred to the 
outer world what the original witnesses ex- 
perienced and announced only as mental 
events. Ostensibly one can refer here to 
Paul. In 1 Cor. 15. 5-8, he speaks of the 
self-manifestations of Christ in a term which 
is indeed sometimes used of visions. But 
Paul himself makes it evident that he did not 
consider the appearances of the Risen Christ 
as mere visions. His own experience before 
Damascus is proof of that. We will not 
withal refer to the Acts of the Apostles, 
which in its three narratives of the con- 
version of Paul (Acts 9. 1-9; 22. 3-1 1 ; 26. 
4-18) presupposes that his companions had 
possibly also received an impression of the 
self-manifestation of Christ, and records 
that Paul in consequence of the brightness of 
the appearance had lost his sight. The op- 
position party would find here also a later 
description. Paul himself accurately dis- 
tinguishes the experience before Damascus 
from the visions which he frequently had 
afterward. Of these he did not like to speak 
(2 Cor. 12. 1-5) and never made use of 
them in his preaching. But the appearances 



54 The Resurrection of Jesus 

of the Lord before Damascus he treats as a 
unique manifestation by which he became 
convinced in an indubitable manner of the 
bodily resurrection of the Lord and of his 
glorified life (i Cor. 9. 1 ; 15. 8; comp. Gal. 
2. 16). From this follows a posteriori, a con- 
clusion for the appearances which the dis- 
ciples had. As surely as Paul was con- 
vinced that he had seen the Risen Christ in 
bodily form, so surely did he also consider 
the seeing of the first disciples not as a mere 
vision, not as a purely mental picture. 

It is usually objected to that the special 
value of the first appearances of Jesus rests 
on this, that in them the disciples thought 
they saw the Lord on earth, whereas he was 
seen later only in heaven. On this account 
Paul did not mention the vision of Stephen, 
which was so highly important for him 
(Acts 7. 51 seq.), among the appearances 
he records in 1 Cor. 1 5. But this expedient 
is abortive in every respect. It does not 
answer the question why it is that after a 
certain point of time the disciples did not 
expect to see Christ again on earth, but only 
in heaven ; besides, it completely ignores the 
actual fact. On the Damascus road Paul 



Explanations of Historical Facts 55 

saw Jesus not on earth but in heaven, and he 
nevertheless was convinced that he saw him 
bodily. Reversedly, in a later vision he saw 
the Lord by his side (Acts 23. 11), and 
Luke, who narrates this, sees therein nothing 
conflicting with his account of the ascension 
(Acts 2. 3-1 1 ). It is not the place where 
one sees Christ but the manner in which he 
is seen which establishes the distinction be- 
tween those first fundamental appearances 
and the later visions. 

To this difference the fact also points that 
the self-manifestations of Jesus were made 
only to a considerably small number of 
people and ceased entirely after a certain 
time. Visionary movements as a rule are 
more intensive and lasting. In the persecu- 
tion which began immediately after the 
founding of the church and increased after- 
ward, an increase of visions would have 
been more likely than their rapid disappear- 
ance. We hear nothing of any attempt on 
this account to obtain appearances of the 
Lord. No one undertook to bring about 
visions by fasting and asceticism. They 
were ever reserved as special favors of the 
Lord. Under the supposition of the vision 



56 The Resurrection of Jesus 

theory this is just as strange as the isolated 
appearance and rapid ending of the appear- 
ances. 

With all this we have not yet touched the 
main question: How is the accomplishment 
of Christophanies in the disciples to be ex- 
plained ? A vision occurs only when one is 
constantly occupied with an object. It does 
not bring before the spiritual eye entirely 
strange pictures in an arbitrary manner, but 
uses ideas which already exist in the mind. 
Perhaps it brings the solution of a question 
with which the mind had already busied 
itself for a long time. It does not offer 
something wholly unexpected, something 
which lies completely outside the horizon. 
If the Easter appearances were visions of 
this kind, faith in the Risen One did not 
produce them, but their expectations. The 
disciples must at least have already asked 
themselves whether the Lord had not, after 
all, come again to life. The faith must have 
already been nascent, perhaps yet almost 
unconscious, and came into view only with 
the appearance of the Risen Lord. Vision 
does not convince the unbeliever but it con- 
firms the believer. 



Explanations of Historical Facts 57 

How little the Easter narratives fit here is 
obvious. The doubt of the disciples plays in 
them an important part, and the appearances 
of Jesus always come unexpectedly and sur- 
prisingly. This instance may be put aside 
by the assertion that one has to deal here 
with perspicuous apologetics. But to all 
doubt in the resurrection the church opposed 
the assurance that the disciples had by no 
means credulously become victims of fraud 
or self-deception; it was rather with diffi- 
culty that they could be convinced of the 
certainty of the appearances of Christ. But 
this criticism does not suffice to put aside a 
fact attested by the apostle Paul. Among 
the appearances in 1 Cor. 15. 5-8, he men- 
tions one to James, evidently the brother of 
the Lord (Gal. 1. 19; 2. 9, 12). Before the 
death of Jesus we never meet with James 
among the disciples of the Lord. According 
to John 8. 5 his brethren did not believe on 
him, and the same idea causes the narrative 
in Mark 3. 21, according to which the 
friends of Jesus went out to lay hold of him, 
for they said, "He is beside himself." Soon 
after Easter (Acts 1. 14} and later on (1 
Cor. 9. 5) the brethren of the Lord belong to 



58 The Resurrection of Jesus 

the congregation o£ the believers in the Mes- 
siah. This change can hardly be explained 
in any other way than that it had been 
brought about by the appearance which 
James experienced. We have therefore to 
deal here with a seeing which has faith not 
as a cause, but as an effect. 

This is still more decidedly the case with 
Paul. True, efforts have been made to show 
by a careful psychological inquiry that the 
conditions existed in him which could and 
must lead to a Christ vision. But this is in 
complete contradiction to Paul's own state- 
ments. Of doubts in the correctness of his 
service under the law and of his good con- 
science in persecuting zeal, of which so much 
is made in modern descriptions of the con- 
version of the apostle, he knew nothing 
himself. He states rather that until the time 
when it pleased God to reveal his Son in him 
he had advanced in Judaism and become a 
fanatical persecutor of the church (Gal. i. 
13-16). Also the touching description of 
the conflict between to will and to perform 
(Rom. 7. 7-25) can only be adduced as a 
natural explanation of his conversion when 
one forgets that in this section we have the 



Explanations of Historical Facts 59 

statement of a Christian about his con- 
dition without Christ, not the confession of 
a still unbelieving Pharisee. It is certain 
that a deeply founded love of truth and a 
rare religio-moral seriousness had already 
distinguished the persecutor Paul; but with 
this the disposition for a visionary seeing of 
the Risen Christ was not given. The sud- 
denness and force of his inner change were 
also wholly unintelligible, had long prepara- 
tion paved the way for his conversion. 

Not only James and Paul, but the first 
apostles also, offer no sufficient cause for 
the origin of Christ visions. How, in the 
course of thirty-six hours, the disciples 
should have come from the deepest hopeless- 
ness to the most joyous certainty that Jesus 
lives, remains an unsolved problem. Had a 
slowly germinating belief in Easter grown 
into gradual maturity, it would not have led 
to visions. But in the event that faith had 
come suddenly it is incomprehensible how 
the change could have taken place in so short 
a time. It is questionable whether the vision 
theory can escape this dilemma. 

How does it suggest that the Easter be- 
lief originated? We receive no uniform 



6o The Resurrection of Jesus 

answer. Most pleasing is the assumption 
that the impression of the person of Jesus 
upon his disciples had been so marked that 
his picture accompanied them day and night. 
The contrast between the unique grandeur 
and the awful fate of the Lord was con- 
tinually with them, and finally found its so- 
lution in a vision. But such a development 
would have required more time than the 
space of hardly two days, and the question 
how the disciples came to this conviction 
at the moment of the resurrection of Jesus, 
is eluded. The disciples must have had a 
certain basis to accept something so extra- 
ordinary. Here predictive words and types 
of the Old Testament, like Psalm 16; Isa. 
53 ; Jonah 2. 1 ; Hos. 6. 2, seem to offer 
themselves in explanation; but they are too 
indefinite to have originated the Easter be- 
lief. Only when other proof existed for the 
disciples that Jesus was risen was their at- 
tention directed to those testimonies of the 
Old Testament (comp. John 2. 22; 20. 9). 
The same applies to Jesus's own prediction 
of his resurrection. The behavior of the 
disciples in those critical days sufficiently 
shows that those prophetic words of the 



Explanations of Historical Facts 6i 

Lord had made no impression upon them. 
Besides, Mark clearly states that the dis- 
ciples first of all did not know what to do 
with Jesus's prophecy of the resurrection 
(Mark 9. 10; comp. John 2. 22). 

With greater reason one could refer to 
the empty sepulcher. The disappearance of 
the body of Jesus could have indeed awak- 
ened the thought of the resurrection of the 
Lord. In itself it would rather have led to 
the assumption of a displacing of the body 
(comp. John 20. 2, 15), but belief in a bodily 
resurrection of eminent men of God was 
much propagated at that time. Thus Herod 
thought that the Baptist executed by him 
had again appeared in the person of Jesus ; 
and in the Lord the people variously beheld 
one of the former prophets who had to come 
to life again (Mark 6. 14; 8. 27 seq.). But 
we must not here overlook an important dif- 
ference. The popular opinion, presupposed 
in all these cases a return to the earthly 
mode of existence; whereas, from the be- 
ginning the disciples were convinced that 
Jesus was risen to a glorified life. Still more 
important is another circumstance. Herod 
and the masses were only led to the thought 



62 The Resurrection of Jesus 

of a resurrection of the dead by the extra- 
ordinary miracles of Jesus; the wonderful 
deeds wrought by him demanded an unusual 
explanation. Thus it was supposed that 
Jesus must have previously lived in a higher 
world. This conclusion however completely 
ceased in the minds of the disciples in those 
days after the Crucifixion; their hope, that 
in Jesus the Messiah had appeared, seemed 
to have been thoroughly refuted. Then they 
recognized also that no miraculous inter- 
vention had taken place which could have 
served or upheld their faith. Nothing had 
happened which required a supernatural ex- 
planation. The cross seemed to have de- 
stroyed their expectations forever. There 
was no reason to suppose that Jesus was 
risen. 

Instead of recommending the vision 
theory, the empty sepulcher rather refutes 
it. The question how the body of Jesus had 
disappeared no critic has answered satis- 
factorily. The tradition had certainly noth- 
ing to do with it. It had no power to dispose 
of the body, and at any rate, it would not 
have omitted to refute the resurrection ser- 
mon of the disciples by a reference to the 



Explanations of Historical Facts 63 

real whereabouts of the body had it been in 
a position to do so. We might sooner think 
that Joseph of Arimathea might have trans- 
ferred the body, which for the time being 
was in his tomb, to another place. But for a 
length of time this could not have been hid- 
den from the disciples, even if Joseph's con- 
nection with the congregation had only been 
a very loose one. From the standpoint of 
the vision theory, nothing remains but to 
think of some inexplicable accident. 

In recent times Babylonian mythology has 
also been called to> explain the belief in the 
resurrection. The temporary disappearance 
and reappearance of the stars, like the 
withering and flourishing of the vegetation, 
has variously been presented in Oriental 
religions as a death and resurrection of the 
gods. An immediate transference of these 
notions to Jesus is indeed not to be thought 
of. It is supposed, therefore, that in view 
of the syncretism of that time, such ideas 
were natural to Judaism, and what long ago 
had been predicted of the Messiah, the dis- 
ciples applied to the person of Jesus. Were 
such the case the idea of a Christ who died 
and rose again should have been the common 



64 The Resurrection of Jesus 



property of Judaism, or at least of some of 
its circles; that such cannot have been the 
case is sufficiently proved by the reception 
which the preaching of the Crucified One 
has found among the Jews. How much this 
must also be applied to the disciples has 
been already shown from their behavior 
concerning the passion-prophecies of Jesus. 
The Christian Easter faith besides leads 
much farther than the Babylonian resurrec- 
tion myths : here the question is always of a 
revival which is followed by a new dying. 
Hope does not go beyond the orbit of life. 
But the disciples of Jesus were convinced 
that the Christ who rose from the dead is no 
more to die, but is once for all removed 
from the power of death (Rom. 6. 9). To 
such resurrection belief the Babylonian 
religion never rose. 



The Christophanies as the Work of 
God and Christ on the Conscious- 
ness of the Disciples 

The undeniable defects of the vision 
theory in its setting thus far treated have re- 
sulted in giving to it a different turn. 



Explanations of Historical Facts 65 

Prominent thinkers conceived the appear- 
ances of the Risen Lord as visions whose 
origin are not to be sought in the imagination 
of the disciples, but in the work of God and 
Christ. In this way the revelation charac- 
ter of the appearances is preserved, and to 
the conviction of the disciples that Jesus 
truly lives, a divine security is given, But 
this does not explain what induced the dis- 
ciples to distinguish the first appearances of 
the Risen One from later Christ visions, and 
the empty sepulcher remains still an un- 
solved problem. Besides, we cannot see the 
necessity of such visions. The belief of the 
disciples in the person of Jesus was too 
deeply rooted for the death sentence of the 
Sanhedrin to have made them doubt the 
divine sending of the Lord. Without visions 
they firmly believed that the spirit of Jesus 
was safe in the hands of God, like that 
of all the pious ones and prophets of the 
Old Testament. To perform unnecessary 
miracles is not the way of God; and the 
appearances of the Risen Jesus had actually 
given to the disciples much more than the 
confidence that Jesus's life was not ex- 
tinguished. The advantage of this form of 



66 The Resurrection of Jesus 

the vision theory is in the removal of the 
difficulties which lie in the idea of a resur- 
rection body. Many indissoluble questions 
cease as soon as one supposes that, in conse- 
quence of their other views, the disciples re- 
ferred a purely spiritual self-attestation of 
the Lord to a being risen to a bodily life. 
In the vision they could have seen, heard 
and touched Jesus, as the accounts of the 
Gospels presuppose, without therefore in- 
ferring a corresponding corporality. But 
this is only a seeming advantage. We can 
just as little get an idea of a real, personal 
existence which is detached from all con- 
ditions of the earthly-bodily life, as of a 
resurrection-body. Our entire existence is 
so dependent upon the conditions of the 
sensuous world, that only a shadowy exist- 
ence seems to remain when we leave out the 
material. How thinking, volition and feel- 
ing are possible without brains and nerves, 
besides how effect upon others can take place 
without bodily mediation is entirely beyond 
our comprehension. The self-attestations of 
Christ are made more intelligible by giving 
up his bodily resurrection; by putting a 
merely imagined and constructed miracle in 



Explanations of Historical Facts 67 

the place of one historically accredited. The 
objective vision theory is the effort to medi- 
ate between the apostolic testimony and 
modern criticism, which really does no jus- 
tice to either of the factors. 

The Christophanies as Demonstrating 
the Bodily Resurrection of the 
Lord 

Thus remains that explanation of the fact 
which the New Testament presupposes 
throughout, the acknowledgment of the 
bodily resurrection of Jesus. True, this too 
leaves many questions open; above all the 
glorified personality of the Risen Christ is to 
us a mysterious and absolutely inconceiv- 
able quality 1 ; but the question is whether on 
this account it must also be unreal. We, 
whose life is limited to time and space, can 
have no conception of an existence which is 
without these limits; and yet, the very 
noblest and best in our life points beyond the 
visible world to a higher order of things in 

1 It may be mysterious, but certainly not " inconceiv- 
able.' ' The mysterious and as yet incomprehensible na- 
ture of ether, its laws and qualities, is very suggestive 
from a purely scientific point of view. — Editor. 



68 The Resurrection of Jesus 

which the glaring dissonances of the spirit- 
ual and bodily existence are resolved into 
harmony. In different ways the attempt 
has been made to bring within our compre- 
hension the peculiar nature of the body of 
the risen Christ. It has been assumed that 
only for the time being the body of Jesus 
received the form in which he became vis- 
ible, or some facts especially offensive to 
our philosophic thinking were credited to the 
account of tradition, which formed certain 
events more concretely. All these are suppo- 
sitions without any certain foundation, be- 
cause we have no rule for estimating things 
which are absolutely beyond our experience. 
It is true that not all who were present at 
the appearances of the Risen One, perceived 
one and the same thing. The Lord was 
known by the disciples only so far as he 
made himself known, and their eyes were 
opened for the seeing of him. But one 
thing was at all times certain : that the Lord 
had really and bodily come to them, proved 
himself alive to them, and gave them direc- 
tions for their present work. We stand here 
before a miracle which precludes every 
natural explanation. Whoever thinks that 



Explanations of Historical Facts 69 

he must refuse such a one from the start, 
would do the same if the historical attesta- 
tion of the resurrection of Jesus were even 
more evident and tangible than it actually 
was. Whether one acknowledges a miracle 
or not is a matter of one's view of life and 
faith, not of historical judgment and scien- 
tific inquiry. The decision on the miracle 
of the resurrection of Jesus depends in the 
end on whether one shares the religious com- 
prehensive view of the Bible, and especially 
what importance one ascribes to the person 
of Jesus. The resurrection of the Lord is 
and remains, therefore, an article of faith. 



THE MEANING OF THE RESURREC- 
TION OF JESUS 

We must consider the resurrection of 
Jesus from its historical effects. Without 
the Easter experience the disciples had nev- 
er found the courage to preach Jesus as the 
Messiah to all the world. The Christian 
church would never have been founded, and 
the course of the history of the world would 
consequently have been led into entirely 
different paths. As far as we can survey 
the past there is no event of such compre- 
hensive reach as this fact, which, however, 
does not make the resurrection of Jesus an 
object of faith, it could be a certainty to us 
that it is the most important event in the 
history of the world and yet not obtain any 
relation to our personal life. 

It is otherwise when we perceive in the 
resurrection of the Lord a deed of God, a 
sign which is given to us in support of our 
faith. Thus it becomes a manifestation of 
the power of God which overcomes death, 

70 



Meaning of Resurrection of Jesus 71 

and holds out to us prospects of restoration 
from the state of death. 1 

% >jc >H >js >H ^ 4t 

The resurrection of Jesus has a decisive 
importance for us when we consider its 
bearing upon the person of the Lord. Jesus 
intended not to be merely a pattern of faith 
and love; he appeared not merely as a 
prophet who proclaimed the decree of God 
and enjoins the commandments of God. He 
claimed to be the Messiah of his people, the 
Lord of the church, yea, the Saviour of the 
world. He demanded belief in his person 
and attested that in him God has approached 
humanity as nowhere else. Was he not 
asking too much by this ? He may have de- 
voted himself to God with the whole fervon 
of a religious genius and consumed his life 
in the service of love, but in this one point 
should he not have paid the inevitable tribute 
to the notions of his people and time by esti- 
mating the significance of his life in the form 
of the Messianic consciousness, and thereby 
necessarily overrating it ? To such questions 

1 The author here branches off to express opinions not 
exactly germane to the critical inquiry he has been pur- 
suing, and they are for that reason omitted. — Editor. 



72 The Resurrection of Jesus 

of doubt the resurrection of Jesus gives us a 
divine answer. In it the Father acknowl- 
edged the Son and put upon his life and 
work the seal of divine attestation. 

Even with this the most important is not 
yet said. Had Jesus remained in the grave, 
an after effect upon the millenniums of his- 
tory might have proceeded. His word and 
example would not cease to influence human- 
ity and hold before it high ideals of love to 
God and fellow-man, but the person of 
Jesus himself would be nevertheless a quan- 
tity of the past. The dead can no more 
interfere with the earthly life. He could no 
more assert his will and assist later genera- 
tions in their new relations with word and 
deed. Never-resting history passes over 
him, to be led by new personalities to new 
tasks and new goals. Here lies the real 
nucleus of the Easter message. It concerns 
the question of the lasting importance of 
the person of Christ. If Jesus be not risen, 
he may be an important factor in the history 
of the Kingdom of God, but he is not the 
everlasting head of the church. He may 
give us a powerful impulse to faith, but he 
cannot be the object of faith and adoration. 



Meaning of Resurrection of Jesus 73 

We cannot trust in him as our Redeemer, 
nor 'call upon him as our Lord; we have 
nothing to expect from him; only fanatics 
could rely on him. In the opposite case, 
the resurrection of Jesus gives us the cer- 
tainty that a lasting communion is consum- 
mated between us and God. In him human- 
ity has its representative before God. In 
his death Christ not only established a new 
relation to God, but continually assured also 
to everyone in his weakness his continuous 
connection with God. More perfectly than 
during his earthly life is he now the executor 
of the divine decree of salvation to the world, 
the Lord who, exalted to the participation in 
God's government of the world, governs the 
course of his church and leads everyone to 
faith. With Jesus's resurrection an entirely 
new prospect is opened to humanity. With 
him its head, it finds itself in a new relation 
to God. In his person it has the pledge for 
the forgiveness of its sin and for the attain- 
ment of the appointment given to it by God. 
In him it sees the creative will of God most 
gloriously realized, and that, by it, the final 
victory over death is also guaranteed. 

Thus indeed the entire state of faith and 



74 The Resurrection of Jesus 

salvation of the Church is attached to the 
confession : 

"On the third day he rose again from the 
dead." 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



